[News Fighting] Park Hyung-soo said, "Perjury is guilty, perjury teacher is not guilty? I've never seen him when I was a prosecutor."

[YTN Radio News Fighting Bae Seunghee]
□ Broadcasting: FM 94.5 (07:15 - 09:00)
□ Broadcast date and time: November 26, 2024 (Tue)
□ Host: Attorney Bae Seung-hee
□ Cast member: Park Hyung-soo, member of the People's Power

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information.

[YTN Radio <News Fighting, Bae Seunghee]> Please reveal that it's about the interview.
◆ Attorney Bae Seung-hee (hereinafter referred to as Bae Seung-hee): I'm Bae Seung-hee, the news fighting. The third part starts. Representative Lee Jae-myung was acquitted in the first trial of perjury teacher, which was the biggest crisis. There's someone perjured, but there's no one who's been taught? In this regard, let's connect Park Hyung-soo, a former prosecutor, to the People's Power. Hello,

◇Park Hyung-soo, Member of the People's Power (hereinafter referred to as Park Hyung-soo): Hello. I'm Park Hyung-soo, a member of the People's Power.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Yesterday, CEO Lee Jae-myung. I was acquitted. Did you anticipate the outcome of the sentence?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: I expected some of them to be, but it is usually a very unusual ruling to be innocent like this. So I think not only the power of our people but also many people will be confused or a little embarrassed by this ruling. As you said, the perjury is punished, but the person who taught perjury is innocent. Usually, it is very difficult to understand. So, although I respect this first trial ruling, I think the conclusion at the appeal trial may be sufficiently different.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: You think it can be different in the appeal trial. Each of the perjury party's remarks was judged guilty or not. Is there a case like this?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: Of course, you have to judge whether perjury is not established or not depending on each one. So it's about judging Kim Jin-sung's perjury one by one. Then, it seems that there is no scope as to whether or not it is a teaching act as a whole, or there is no involvement in it.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Yes. By the way, the witness who is the perjury is the lawmaker, but are you on speaker phone?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: No.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I see. Have you ever seen a case like this when you were a prosecutor, where a witness, who is a perjury party, was convicted of a fine of 5 million won, while Lee Jae-myung, who served as a perjury teacher, was acquitted?

◇Park Hyung-soo: I've never seen anything like this in this case when I was a prosecutor. It's probably very rare. Because you're confessing that you've perjured yourself. And he confesses that the perjury was perjury because of the teacher's behavior. If so, under the Evidence Act, this testimony itself that he perjured this teacher and this statement itself is a false confession. As long as the confession is not recognized as unreliable, it is natural that the teacher is guilty. That's why I think this ruling is very unusual because I've never seen anything like this when I was a prosecutor.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I know. According to the court's explanation, this witness voluntarily came forward and perjured even though no one asked for it.

◇ Park Hyung-soo: That's right. So basically, according to this court's ruling, it is impossible to explain why this person named Kim Jin-sung risked perjury and did this perjury when it was a crime that could be punished. For example, if CEO Lee Jae-myung said to testify as you remember, he said so, but Kim Jin-sung misunderstood it and testified that he was telling you to perjury. Isn't this conclusion strange? It's not natural.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Ah, the court has no intention of perjury teacher that Lee Jae-myung is not intentional. It is explained that when the witness spoke on the phone, it was not decided whether the witness would testify as requested by Lee or how to testify. How do you rate it?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: There are many reasons why the court has now found him innocent.Ma, as I said earlier, is that I can't see the request for perjury because the transcript of the call is telling me to make a statement as I remember. Then, the act of issuing the summary of the argument is not beyond the scope of the right to defend itself. As you said now, it was not decided whether to testify at the time, and there was no need to predict that I would give perjury because I did not know what kind of testimony I would give. So I decided that there was no intention. First of all, after looking at the overall transcript of this ruling, there are comments in the transcript asking you to testify as you remember, and then you can tell them that you heard that. There are parts where they say this. It's perfect to keep telling them that there was a connection. I think it'll be very helpful if I say that, so I'm saying this. Then, you must carefully judge which of these two conflicting words to pay attention to. If you were going to ask me to testify as I was, why would I call you if you were going to ask me to testify as I remember? There are two reasons for making that call, but when you think about the reason for making that call, it's good to say so. Please tell me that you remember what you remember. I'm calling to tell you this. Overall, I should have paid attention to it, but I think the first trial's judgment is now reversed.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: So actually. What about Kim Jin-sung? He wasn't a witness. Lee Jae-myung's side applied for a witness as a person in their favor at the time.

◇Park Hyung-soo: It was Kim In-seop who contacted Kim Jin-sung for the first time and Kim Jin-sung is doing business together, so Lee Jae-myung was able to witness Kim Jin-sung through Jeong Jin-sang and Kim In-seop from the beginning.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: So, it seems that the charges are clarified in the warrant review. There are many people who say that this can be different from the warrant review stage and the criminal trial.

◇ Park Hyung-soo: Of course, that can be different now. At the warrant stage, the degree of proof is a little weak whether it has been clarified or not. It should be sufficiently proved in this trial rather than in the criminal trial, but as mentioned earlier, this case is a false confession under the Evidence Act. I gave perjury earlier, and the perjury received this teacher, so I gave perjury. Unless there is evidence that this part is a false confession, it is natural to be guilty unless it is recognized as a false confession. I think that's why the warrant judge also expressed that it seems to have been clarified.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Then is there a possibility that the result will be overturned at the appeal trial?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: I think there is a very high possibility that the result will be overturned if the prosecution appeals on this. First of all, if you look at the details, this teaching behavior does not work when you give specific instructions. It is generally said that persuasion, pleading, or requesting are included in teaching behavior. Then, if you look at the contents of Lee Jae-myung's call, it seems that he repeatedly persuaded and asked for it even though he said he did not remember it as a whole. Therefore, it can be changed sufficiently in the appeal trial, and as you said earlier, it has not yet been determined whether it will be perjury, so there was no foreseen and unnecessary intention to perjury. It is generally said that the teacher does not need to know that the criminal will commit the crime at a certain time, at a certain place, and in some way. That's right. According to the logic of this ruling, then you have to testify as a witness and then teach as a witness to become a perjury teacher. It's a logic that can't normally be established.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: That's right. It doesn't make sense to judge that a teacher is already intentional when teaching, but it's also impossible to judge it as an act of a criminal.

◇Park Hyung-soo: Yes. And it was judged that providing another summary of the argument did not exceed the scope of the right to defend. Of course, it is difficult to judge whether or not to put a method in with the provision of the summary of the pleading itself, but if the provision of the summary of the pleading is to evoke memories of the time, it can be viewed as a court. However, the summary of this argument was rejected by repeatedly asking people who don't remember to remember what happened and to do it accordingly. So, I persuaded him, kept asking, and refused this, so I think this is beyond the scope of the exercise of defense rights. I see that there is a possibility that these parts have been sufficiently contested in the appeal trial and the conclusion may change.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: This perjury teacher's court is also in charge of the Daejang-dong case. In this trial, it is predicted that a ruling in favor of CEO Lee Jae-myung will also come out. How do you see it?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: But this Daejang-dong Baekhyun-dong case itself is very extensive. There is a lot of evidence, so the evidence investigation process itself will take a very long time, and representative Lee Jae-myung will use a very large delay strategy in this trial. So I think it will take years for this to come to a conclusion. Then, it seems unlikely that this perjury teacher's court will be in charge of this trial as it is. I think it will probably change.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: After being acquitted in the first trial, the representative Lee Jae-myung said, "Let's do politics that saves rather than killing." How did you feel about CEO Lee Jae-myung?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: I think you only talked about yourself in that part that doesn't add up. I said, "Let's do politics to save people." Who are you saying to save? Isn't it about politics to save yourself? I think Lee Jae-myung's current judicial risk has now moved on to a politically unsolvable part. In the realm of this judiciary, this is a problem that needs to be solved with strict legal principles and sentencing, and I think it is not right to say that let's do politics that saves people as if this can be solved politically.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Yes. Will Lee Jae-myung's one-pole system be further strengthened in the Democratic Party?

◇Park Hyung-soo: For the time being, I think this will come out in a solid form in a more strengthened form of the Lee Jae-myung first-class system. But I don't think it will last that long. I don't think the appeals court will take that long now. Because basically, within 3 months of the appeal trial, the prosecution law states that the appeal trial is 1 trial and 6 months, and the appeal trial is 3 months and 3 months. That's the situation, and it took a long time to investigate the evidence in the first trial because representative Lee Jae-myung disagrees with all the evidence, so we have to go through all the procedures to investigate the evidence. That's why it took a long time, but now that the evidence investigation process has been completed, only the judgment remains at the appeal trial. So I don't think it'll take that long. If the appeals court ruling is found guilty, Lee Jae-myung's one-way system will naturally be shaken, and I think many Democratic Party lawmakers will have to think differently then.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I see. However, the Democratic Party of Korea said on the 28th that it will not only raise the Special Prosecutor's Act on First Lady Kim Kwon, but also the prosecutor's impeachment. How is the response from the power of the people?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: I don't think the Democratic Party is stepping up its rental offensive because of the acquittal of the perjury investigation this time. It's guilty in the Public Official Election Act because it's guilty in the Public Official Election Act, so I think it's going to further strengthen its foreign offensive. Because the nomination law ruling I mentioned earlier will proceed earlier, and the result is directly in Lee Jae-myung's political life. There is also the issue of the right to run for election and the return of 43.4 billion won in presidential funds to the Democratic Party. That's right. That's why in order to overcome the judicial risk of representative Lee Jae-myung, we need to shorten his term of office or impeach him. That's why I think the Democratic Party's offensive will get worse now, and the same will be true of the Special Prosecutor Act. I think our ruling party should consider the hidden purpose of the Democratic Party's impeachment and deal with it wisely.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I see. The Democratic Party's off-the-shelf struggle continues now, but will the off-the-shelf struggle be further strengthened?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: I'm going to fight outside sometimes, but I don't think it's going to be easy to do it on a large scale. Because it seems that the power itself has already been lost considerably. If you look at the rally, there are mostly Democrats, so some even said not to wear blue clothes.Ma is not very popular among the general public. So, I think the Democratic Party is in a bit of a dilemma because it can't leave it alone or continue to push ahead.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Wouldn't this perjury teacher's innocence strengthen the rally?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: For now, it looks like that. However, fundamentally, this rally is not a response from the general public in itself to hold a rally for the purpose of escaping one's judicial risk. And even though the perjury teacher is now innocent, the Public Official Election Act is guilty, so as I said earlier, impeachment or rental struggle is the only way to overcome the disqualification under the Public Official Election Act, so the public's response is unlikely to increase significantly.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I see. This time, there is a controversy over the bulletin board of the People's Power Party. Yesterday, former Supreme Council member Kim Min-joo and representative Han Dong-hoon had a war of words, how did you see it?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: It doesn't seem very desirable for the former party leader and supreme council member to have such an open war of words in front of the media in front of the public. It seems inappropriate to talk in such a public setting when you can raise issues and discuss and discuss them in private meetings. I think this problem needs to be solved a little politically. Politically, it's probably very difficult to subside for the time being, and even if it subsides, it will continue to be latent. And since this will continue to emerge someday, what I said earlier is that there should be some solution after discussing it at the closed Supreme Council, suggesting a political solution, or watching it while the police are investigating it. So, if the police investigation results or the Supreme Council's meeting is not appropriate, I think Handong should express its position if there is any doubt.

◆Bae Seung-hee: Actually, the family's name was written, so wouldn't it be a matter of ending if CEO Han Dong-hoon said his family didn't do it?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: But if that happens, there will be a talk of party appreciation.Ma has a view that there is a problem with the party's bulletin board, which is now operated on the premise of anonymity, but if there is not enough explanation on that, the party leader should express some position anyway.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Yes, there is a crisis in CEO Han Dong-hoon's leadership. Some innovation engines are falling. There are even talks about this right now. How do you see it?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: If you try to connect that part that much, that would be a little too much, but anyway, don't you have the image of CEO Han Dong-hoon so far? I also think it is necessary to preemptively deal with that part in order to continue to preserve the clean image and freshness that are different from existing politicians.

◆Bae Seung-hee: It would be better for Han Dong-hoon to preemptively respond to the bulletin board of the party. That's what you're talking about.

◇ Park Hyung-soo: Yes, that's right. I think it would be good for the party and CEO Han Dong-hoon.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: CEO Han Dong-hoon brought up the TF for the poll race regarding the Myung Tae-kyun gate. There is also an interpretation that it is aimed at the ruling party figures related to Myung Tae-kyun, what do you think?

◇ Park Hyung-soo: Why would we target the passport figures? It's just that these now illegal and illegal polls are actually an act of taking the place of voting. Since public opinion polls are decided by that in false public office elections, we will prepare strict and transparent procedures for that. And let's take a look at the process so far. If it's TF like this, I think the intention is okay.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: I see. I see. Thank you for your words today.

◇ Park Hyung-soo: Yes, thank you. Thank you.

◆ Bae Seung-hee: Until now, I was Park Hyung-soo, a member of the People's Power. Please understand that the phone was not in good condition in the middle of the interview with Representative Park Hyung-soo a while ago. Thank you.